SwiftVets.com

[RiflemanDD730]

The clock is ticking. What will influence undecided voters Nov. 2?

Influencing undecided voters seems to be the most important objective of the research on this site. It may be appropriate to review what is likely to influence them in the short time left before the election. The undecideds will probably only respond to a blockbuster announcement of wrongdoing. This could be a confession from one of the band of brothers that his story supporting Kerry is false, or a document that proves Alston never was on Kerry’s boat, or that one of the medals was definitely awarded incorrectly due to an action by Kerry himself (not due to someone else giving the awards or misinterpreting documents). The first Purple Heart award is the one that could do it because it involves Kerry himself.

There is a good example of how this occurred in the recent past. Bob Kerrey dropped out of the 2000 presidential primary when he was confronted with documentary evidence that he verified a false after action report claiming to have killed 17 Viet Cong when in fact only women and children were killed. The false report was the basis for his Bronze Star. This information was uncovered in a 2-year investigation for Newsweek. The story was killed after Bob Kerrey dropped out of the 2000 race but the reporter got the NYT Magazine to publish it in 2001 and CBS ran the story on 60 Minutes after which Bob Kerrey admitted publicly that the medal was “inappropriately awarded”. In this case it is Bob Kerrey himself attesting to the filing of a false report that is the key factor.

Key issues in the John Kerry case are the validity of medal awards, suspicions concerning changes in documents, and unfounded claims of heroism. What in the John Kerry case is similar to the Bob Kerrey case? The following is a review from my perspective.

SILVER STAR. Did Kerry’s actions rise to the level of this award? That seems to be the question here. His command thought so. Zumwalt’s citation has a lot of detail implying that the award includes Kerry’s performance as OTC as well as his personal action in killing the enemy soldier. Is it likely that proof will be found that Kerry significantly changed documents to influence his command to give him this award? Probably not. Zumwalt’s summary shows that he wanted to reward his sailors to boost morale. The chances are low of finding Kerry himself significantly involved. Changes in the citations are interesting but do they change Zumwalt’s original assessment?

BRONZE STAR – 3rd PURPLE HEART. Hostile fire and the severity of Kerry’s wound seem to be the issues. The band of brothers testifies that hostile fire was present and documents support them. It looks like a confession or proof that the documents are false are the only challenges here. The severity of the wound issue can be related to the apparent combining of a wound received earlier in the day with a bruise received during the action in a casualty report. This could be very important if it could be shown that Kerry was behind it and he had the intent to defraud. So it’s probably unlikely that there is a blockbuster on the BZ because of the testimony of the BOB but the 3rd PH documentation might offer a possibility if Kerry’s fingerprints are found on a fraud.

SECOND PURPLE HEART. This one seems pretty straightforward. From what I read he was wounded from hostile fire, was treated, the reports were filed, and he got his award.

FIRST PURPLE HEART. Kerry himself is involved here. He personally asked for the medal. He was turned down by his command. The three command officers involved have filed current affidavits attesting to the fact that there was no hostile fire and that’s why they turned down his request. Even the two enlisted men who claim to have been in the boat with Kerry do not confirm hostile fire. No documentation is known that supports hostile fire. The Navy just concluded a review that indicated that “procedures” were properly followed in awarding all medals but it did not provide any background. That means that they checked something about this award. All that is necessary is to have the Navy make public what they found. Was it an after action report? Was it some kind of administrative letter that gave the award without an after action report? There had to be something to justify their claim that procedures were properly followed.

A blockbuster that will affect undecided voters most likely will arise from the first Purple Heart. The Navy Inspector General needs to be bombarded with requests to release the information SPECIFICALLY ON THE FIRST PURPLE HEART. If generic requests are made to complete the investigation or release all information on all medals they will simply fall back to their original position that the passage of time precludes any likelihood of reaching a definitive answer. The Navy must be forced to focus on one thing. That thing is their responsibility to show what they have on the first Purple Heart. It requires no additional work, ONLY TO MAKE PUBLIC THE INFO THEY ALREADY HAVE.

The clock is ticking.

The Navy Inspector General Hotline
http://www.ig.navy.mil/ComplaintProcedure.htm

The home page of the Navy Inspector General
http://www.ig.navy.mil/

Senators and Congressmen might be very helpful.